Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: a closed project 'records nothing further' (consequence of closure) and a diagnosed rerun spawns a new project referencing rerunOfProjectId. 'Scope: write' is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, though it doesn't clarify why closure isn't flagged destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No padding, though the rerunOfProjectId sentence is arguably tangential to an invocation-time description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema the description covers the mutation's consequence and scope well enough, but it omits permission/error behavior and leaves the required 'reason' enum selection entirely to the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps for a state-changing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents projectId and customerId (superadmin-only). The description clarifies the role of 'reason' as the closure justification but adds no enum semantics, and its rerunOfProjectId reference is not an input parameter, which may confuse rather than help.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Close a fine-tuning project') and identifies the required trigger input ('with its reason'). This clearly differentiates it from create/get/list_fine_tuning_projects siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not guidance. 'Scope: write' hints at the operation class, and the enum reasons imply scenarios, but the description never says at what point in a project's lifecycle an agent should close it versus other actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.